Case \u2116303\/3063\/22 dated 09\/24\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Mukachevo City Council regarding the transfer of a land plot for permanent use to a religious community, as the plaintiff believes that this plot partially overlaps with the land used by the co-owners of the apartment building where she owns an apartment.<\/p>\n
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to prove that her rights were violated by the appealed decisions of the city council. The court noted that the mere fact of using a land plot without title documents does not give a preferential right to acquire ownership of it. Granting permission to develop a land management project also does not guarantee the acquisition of ownership or use rights. The court also took into account that the land plot was not registered as the property or for the use of the co-owners of the apartment building in accordance with the established legal procedure, and the plaintiff applied for the registration of technical documentation only 10 years after obtaining the permit. In addition, the plaintiff did not prove that the disputed land plot is an adjacent territory necessary for the maintenance of the building.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116420\/5350\/23 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of JSC “Odesa TEC” regarding the improper maintenance of a civil defense protective structure and the obligation to bring it into proper condition.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of bodies that do not have the authority to file such a claim. The court emphasized that the authority of the SESU body to appeal to the court is limited to cases of applying sanctions for violations in the field of civil protection or appealing actions regarding denial of access to inspections. Also, the Odesa Regional Military Administration does not have the authority to appeal to the court with demands to oblige actions to bring the protective structure into readiness. The court noted that the special period does not cancel the constitutional principle of legality, which requires that state authorities act within their powers. In addition, the defendant in the case is a legal entity that is not a subject of power, which is also a violation of procedural rules.<\/p>\n
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the claim.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116991\/1824\/25 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for recognition of assets (Audi Q7 car) as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue.<\/p>\n
2. The High Anti-Corruption Court satisfied the prosecutor’s claim.
\nof the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, recognizing the Audi Q7 car, manufactured in 2023, owned by PERSON_3, as an unjustified asset, and decided to confiscate it to the state revenue. The decision is based on the circumstances established by the court, which indicate that the value of the car does not correspond to the official income of the defendant and that there is no evidence of the legality of the acquisition of this asset. The court, having assessed the evidence provided by the parties, concluded that the defendant could not confirm the legality of the origin of the funds used to purchase the car. Also, the court took into account that the purchase of such an expensive car does not correspond to the level of income of the defendant and his usual way of life. The defendants did not provide convincing arguments that would refute the prosecutor’s arguments.<\/p>\n
2. The court decided to satisfy the claim and confiscate the Audi Q7 car to the state revenue, recognizing it as an unjustified asset.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 460\/27800\/23 of 29\/09\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the inaction of the Pension Fund regarding the recalculation and payment of pensions, taking into account the surcharge for extra years of service in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster” as amended until 2017.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasized that the changes to the legislation introduced in 2017 do not have retroactive effect and cannot worsen the situation of persons whose pensions were granted earlier. The court emphasized that persons who acquired the right to a pension, taking into account the special law on the Chernobyl disaster, retain this right even after the change in regulatory regulation. The court also took into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the principle of non-retroactivity of laws and other normative legal acts. **** An important point is that the Supreme Court departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of amendments to Article 56 of Law No. 796-XII, introduced by Law No. 2148-VIII, to legal relations that arose before these amendments came into force. The court pointed out the inadmissibility of narrowing the content and scope of existing rights of such persons, which contradicts Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and satisfied the claim, recognizing the inaction of the Pension Fund as illegal and obliging it to recalculate and pay the pension, taking into account the surcharge for extra years of service in accordance with the wording of the Law in force at the time of the plaintiff’s pension granting.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 160\/32652\/24 of 29\/09\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by AV METAL GROUP LLC against tax assessment notices issued by the Eastern Interregional Directorate of the State Tax Service for maregarding large taxpayers.<\/p>\n
2. The courts of previous instances satisfied the claims of LLC “AV METAL GROUP”, recognizing as illegal and canceling tax assessment notices. The Eastern Interregional Department of the State Tax Service filed a cassation appeal, insisting on the legality of its decisions. The Supreme Court, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, agreed with their conclusions. The court of cassation instance supported the position of the previous courts, which established violations of the norms of current legislation by the tax authority when issuing the disputed tax assessment notices. In particular, the courts could establish the absence of proper evidence of violations on the part of the taxpayer or the incorrect application of tax legislation by the controlling authority. Also, the courts may have taken into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding similar disputes, ensuring the uniformity of law enforcement.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Eastern Interregional Department of the State Tax Service, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
Case No. 460\/4387\/24 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices, by which the amount of budget reimbursement of VAT was reduced for LLC “Agro Frost Rivne” and the amount of the negative value of the value added tax was reduced.<\/p>\n 2. The court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff provided sufficient primary documents confirming the reality of business transactions with LLC “Biofruit”, in particular, a contract for processing berries, acts of rendering processing services, acts of processing raw materials, acts of acceptance and transfer of finished products, expense invoices, tax invoices, bank statements and other documents. The court noted that the absence of a consignment note in this case does not indicate the unreality of the transactions, since the goods were already located at the buyer’s location. The court also emphasized that the taxpayer should not be held responsible for violations of tax discipline by its counterparties, if it had real expenses in connection with the purchase of goods and its awareness of the illegal actions of the counterparty was not proven. Regarding the understatement of tax liability for VAT on lease transactions, the court pointed to the profitability of the enterprise’s activity as a whole for the year, which indicates the absence of violations. In addition, the court reduced the amount of reimbursement of expenses for legal aid, considering the declared amounts to be overstated.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Rivne region, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/12025\/24 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax assessment notice. 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the tax authority had not provided sufficient evidence of violations by LLC “Mobizhuk.” The court indicated that the fiscal receipts provided by the plaintiff contained all the necessary details, including the individual tax number of the VAT payer, which refutes the tax authority’s assertion of their absence. In addition, the court noted that the tax authority did not properly document the fact of non-submission of documents regarding the accounting of \u0442\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0430\u0441\u0456\u0432 [inventory] at the beginning of the audit, as provided for by the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court also rejected the tax authority’s reference to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances in this case differ, and, accordingly, the conclusions from those decisions cannot be applied automatically. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not take the opportunity to verify the issuance of settlement documents directly during settlement operations, limiting itself only to checking electronic copies in the taxpayer’s electronic cabinet.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Tax Service of Ukraine, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/83\/25 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the HCJ’s decision to dismiss the judge was based on the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ, which, in turn, was overturned by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber because, at the time the judge was brought to disciplinary responsibility, her powers had already been terminated, which contradicts the requirements of the law and the HCJ Regulations. The court emphasized that although the circumstances of a disciplinary case are not usually assessed when appealing a dismissal decision, in this case, the cancellation of the decision that was the basis for the dismissal makes the HCJ decision unfounded. The court also took into account that the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force do not require proof. Thus, since the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber was overturned, the HCJ’s decision to dismiss the judge does not meet the criteria of validity and reasonableness.<\/p>\n 3. The court \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0432 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043c \u0442\u0430 \u0441\u043a\u0430\u0441\u0443\u0432\u0430\u0432 [recognized as unlawful and canceled] the decision of the High Council of Justice to dismiss the judge.<\/p>\n Case No. 560\/3367\/24 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Issuance of tax assessment notices and tax demand regarding the accrual of real estate tax, other than land, on complexes of non-residential buildings and structures owned by an individual.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, as it believes that the appellate court violated the procedural rights of the plaintiff by refusing to grant the motion for participation in the court hearing via video conference and by not notifying the plaintiff in a timely manner, which effectively deprived the party of the right to participate in the court hearing. The court emphasized that creating adequate opportunities for the realization of the procedural rights of the parties to the case is the duty of the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that conducting a court hearing via video conference is the right of the party, and the court must take all possible actions to ensure the realization of this right. Also, there is no evidence of proper notification of the parties about the hearing of the case on October 14, 2024.<\/p>\n 3. The court ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 460\/4387\/24 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, supporting the decisions of the previous instances, noted that Agro Frost Rivne LLC rightfully included in the tax credit the VAT amounts paid when purchasing goods from Biofruit LLC, since the fact of economic operations is confirmed by proper primary documents that reflect the real movement of goods and changes in the property status of the plaintiff. The court rejected the arguments of the tax authority regarding the impossibility of establishing the source of origin of the goods from the supplier, emphasizing that the taxpayer should not be held responsible for violations of tax discipline by counterparties if it had real expenses and used the purchased goods in its economic activity. The court also emphasized that the absence of freight transport invoices is not evidence of the unreality of the operations, since the goods were already on the territory of the buyer. Regarding the understatement of the VAT tax liability for rental operations, the court pointed to the profitability of the enterprise as a whole, which indicates the absence of violations. Finally, the court agreed with the decision of the appellate instance regarding the partial reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance, recognizing them as commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Rivne region without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances \u2013 without changes.<\/p>\n Case 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax authority’s decision regarding the possibility of the taxpayer’s timely fulfillment of the obligation to submit an environmental tax declaration.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts, which granted the taxpayer’s claim, reasoning that the courts did not properly assess a number of important circumstances. In particular, the courts did not take into account that the taxpayer continued to conduct business activities and submit other tax reports during the disputed period. In addition, the amount of lost information and the possibility of its recovery for the submission of environmental tax reports were not established. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to be exempted from tax obligations, the circumstances of the impossibility of their fulfillment must be objective and confirmed by proper evidence. The court noted that the courts of previous instances had to examine all the case materials in their entirety, and not only those provided by the plaintiff, in order to establish the objective ability of the taxpayer to fulfill his tax obligation.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/21347\/24 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax authority’s decision to cancel the registration of a single tax payer and the obligation to restore such registration.<\/p>\n 2. The court, granting the application for securing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the cancellation of the registration of a single tax payer will lead to a transition to the general taxation system, which will increase the tax burden on the enterprise and may lead to the termination of contracts with counterparties. The court noted that failure to take measures to secure the claim may complicate the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights in the event that the claim is satisfied. The court also took into account that the application of measures to secure the claim is a temporary measure that does not resolve the dispute on the merits and does not indicate the illegality of the tax authority’s decision. The court of cassation emphasized that when deciding on the issue of securing a claim, the validity of the claim is not investigated, but only the existence of a real threat of non-execution of the court decision is assessed. The court also noted that the specifics of the legal relationship require taking into account the possible consequences of not taking measures to secure the claim.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 400\/5839\/24 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the state executor’s order to seize the debtor’s funds in enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 380\/10863\/22 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the conclusion of the State Audit Service of Ukraine regarding violations in the purchase by the Lviv Municipal Enterprise “Lvivavtodor” of the software “Inspector” using the negotiation procedure.<\/p>\n 2. The court, supporting the previous instances, noted that the customer rightfully applied the negotiation procedure, since there was a need to protect the intellectual property rights to the software “Inspector”, the property rights to which belong to “Unip Ukraine” LLC. The court took into account that the customer was already using this software and needed its expansion, and also that “Unip Ukraine” LLC is the sole owner, which makes it impossible to conduct competitive bidding. The court also noted that the customer provided sufficient justifications and documents, in particular a decision on the registration of a copyright agreement, which confirm the legality of applying the negotiation procedure. The court emphasized that the absence of transfer of copyright property rights to the customer confirms the exclusive rights of “Unip Ukraine” LLC to the software. The court also took into account that the defendant did not specify what additional documents are required to confirm the conditions for applying the negotiation procedure.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Audit Service of Ukraine and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
\nregarding the imposition of a penalty for violation of the requirements regarding the use of registrars of settlement operations (RRO).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to dismiss a judge of the Kyiv District Administrative Court on the basis of a clause of the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the commission of a significant disciplinary offense.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against
\nTranslation:<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of tax assessment notices by which Agro Frost Rivne LLC reduced the amount of VAT budget reimbursement and the amount of the negative value of the value-added tax.<\/p>\n
\nCase No. 280\/328\/23 dated 09\/29\/2025<\/p>\n
\nof the courts of previous instances to refuse to open proceedings in an administrative case, because the dispute does not fall under the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The court noted that the key issue in this case is that the debtor is in bankruptcy proceedings, which are regulated by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. According to this Code, all property disputes in which the debtor in a bankruptcy case is a party must be considered by the commercial court in which the bankruptcy case is pending. Since the consolidated enforcement proceeding combines enforcement documents issued by both the commercial and administrative courts, and the debtor is in bankruptcy proceedings, the dispute regarding the appeal of the bailiff’s decision is subject to consideration in the procedure of commercial court proceedings. The court also took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which, from the date of entry into force of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (October 21, 2019), all property disputes in which the debtor is a party must be considered exclusively by the commercial court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.<\/p>\n